§Why CasetextPricing

Notice

undefined

12 Cited authorities

  1. Birchfield v. North Dakota

    136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016)   Cited 1,074 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding warrantless breath tests, but not blood tests, are permitted as searches incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment

  2. Mitchell v. Wisconsin

    139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019)   Cited 140 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the police may order a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious driver whom the police have probable cause to believe that he or she has committed a drunk-driving offense without violating the Fourth Amendment

  3. People v. Wells

    38 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 295 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a possibly intoxicated highway driver, 'weaving all over the roadway,' poses a ... grave and immediate risk to the public"

  4. Burg v. Municipal Court

    35 Cal.3d 257 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 180 times
    Rejecting police power and vagueness or fair notice challenges to the per se statute, and finding it constitutionally permissible to define that offense in terms of a specific alcohol-concentration percentage

  5. Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich

    158 Cal.App.4th 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Restricting the vote on a community college bond measure to residents had a rational basis; there was a probability that "local residents had a greater knowledge and interest in local affairs, while nonresident property owners would mainly be interested in lower taxes"

  6. Moore v. Superior Court

    58 Cal.App.5th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 18 times
    In Moore, another panel of this court agreed with Tellez ’s point that the concurrent legislative histories of sections 1001.36 and 1001.80 showed that the Legislature did not intend to make DUI defendants eligible for diversion under section 1001.36.

  7. Tellez v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.App.5th 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that because of certain unique aspects of the legislative history of § 1001.36, it does not control over Veh. Code, § 23640 even though § 1001.36 was enacted later and neither statute is more specific than the other

  8. R.R. v. Superior Court

    180 Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 24 times

    No. C060573. December 17, 2009. Paulino G. Duran, Public Defender, Arthur L. Bowie and Randi Barrat, Assistant Public Defenders, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. French and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest. OPINION BLEASE, Acting P. J. The issue presented by this petition is whether provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 ( 25 U.S.C.

  9. People v. Weatherill

    215 Cal.App.3d 1569 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing statutory diversion schemes enacted in 1982 expressly excluded DUIs, explaining this served to "avoid the risk of implied repeal" of Veh. Code, former § 23202 and expressed the consistent intent of the Legislature to bar all diversion programs for DUI defendants

  10. People v. Duncan

    216 Cal.App.3d 1621 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 17 times

    Docket No. E007237. January 9, 1990. Appeal from Municipal Court for the Riverside Judicial District of Riverside County, No. APP1395, J.T. Hanks, Judge. COUNSEL Joseph E. Taylor, Public Defender, and David J. Macher, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant. Grover C. Trask II, District Attorney, and Guy B. Pittman, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J. — FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case involves the question of whether defendant

  11. Section 5 - Severability

    Cal. Veh. Code § 5   Cited 15 times

    If any portion of this code is held unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of any other portion of this code. Ca. Veh. Code § 5 Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.